Yes. Not for profit. Not for profit what?
Yes. Not for profit. Not for profit what?
but since you guys own hypocrisy like it's no one's business, you quickly grab that flag and hoist it high because it suits your purposes.
Hypocrisy is only an issue with people I don't agree with.
Yes, and they still would, except this is not just easier, but simply better. It is impossible to keep an up-to-date e-mail contact list of all students that might want to visit. Active subjects are easy, students under my supervision - more dynamic, but still possible. But these are not all students that might want to know! New candidates for my supervision, students of parallel groups in a subject whose teacher is unavailable for a few days, even non-students (e.g. coworkers with a short question) etc, etc.
E-mailing everyone who could potentially be interested is spamming. Static announcements on a web page don't work any better than a card on the door - people only check once they've arrived and I'm not there. Publish-subscribe is the exact right model for this case.
News? Obsolete, and creating a new group just for one person seems overkill. Facebook, etc? Overkill, besides, I refuse to use it. E-mail list server - well... that would actually work and I'll assume that that was what you actually meant by emails.
Except the process of creating a new group at the university server is too bothersome and unclear, running my own is easy but not as robust, the email-controlled subscription interface is not that intuitive to students who rarely use anything like that, etc. Yes, it would work, but using Twitter is much easier for me and most of the students. It's simply the right tool for the job, get over it.
Two more points.
First, she made the decision early in her SOS position. Maybe the other devices were not yet assigned. The main point would still remain that 4 devices are better than 5 later on etc (all things being equal).
Second, the device quantity has nothing to do with secrecy laws. You are wandering off topic. The FBI investigated mishandling of classified material, NOT device quantity.
People who don't care about honesty and the free exchange of ideas false "report" sites they don't like as having malware, deceptive contents, whatever they can so that the automated filters in Google, anti-virus, etc.. prevent people from visiting them.
The practice not only (temporarily) blocks sites which shouldn't be blocked, but also gets people used to assuming a blocked site is much more likely to be a false positive and thus bypass the blocking. A great lose/lose scenario from these idiots.
Maybe she used a max of 7 devices but averaged 2.3. We don't know, we don't have that detail of what was used when. Why yap withOUT detail? Get details, facts, and numbers and THEN yap.
When a given company represents 90% of the daily information stream of your average citizen, it is a monopoly.
That may be relevant, if it were to try to use that monopoly status to get into a different market. Facebook is not doing that, so let them be. The barrier to entry into their market is none-existent — various snapchats, instagrams, et al. have done that. Facebook itself unseated MySpace in front of our eyes.
In the meantime, we need a way to ensure that citizens actually get all information that is relevant to their vote
Who are these omniscient benevolent "we", that need to ensure something for the "citizens", god bless their pretty little heads? No, the "we" and the "citizens" are the same people — and your sentence makes no sense.
A pragmatist would also acknowledge that making the public more informed is more important than giving FB freedom to censor whatever they want.
So, your proposal is to surrender an essential liberty in exchange for a hypothetical temporary gain?.. Don't we already know something about this approach?
The outrage is not that Facebook is censoring whatever they please. The outrage is that others aren't afforded the same liberty.
The author is moonlighting as a coiner of new phrases for old things. Wish him the best, and hope his boss doesn't find out.
Finally truth in an ad revenue site valuation. The code ain't the value.
That appears to be part of the problem. Not only does it stand out like the proverbial sore thumb, only the people who feel a real need are using it, making it easy to spot. We need something that blends in better, so we don't have to consider the percentage of people using it. The only thing that comes to mind for now is that steganography thing, and don't try to hide anything more complex than tiny text files.
You are in a monkey trap... Let go....
"Though a program be but three lines long, someday it will have to be maintained." -- The Tao of Programming